## Meeting Overview The Lake Whatcom Policy Group convened on the morning of December 20, 2024, for a rescheduled meeting originally planned for December 4th. Under the leadership of Chair Russ Shunkin from the City of Bellingham, the group gathered to address two primary agenda items: updates to the Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) program and the final review of the 2025-2029 watershed work plan. The meeting brought together representatives from all three managing jurisdictions—City of Bellingham, Whatcom County, and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District—along with council members and community stakeholders for what would prove to be a substantive discussion about risk management, public engagement, and long-term watershed protection planning. The meeting's significance lay not just in its routine business, but in the culmination of nearly a year's worth of work on the five-year plan, which had generated 307 public comments from 37 individuals and six organizations. This level of public engagement represented an unprecedented response to a Lake Whatcom management document, setting the stage for both celebration of the collaborative process and tension over unresolved policy questions. ## Aquatic Invasive Species Program Updates and Fee Restructure Mike Schneider, Field Operations Manager for the City of Bellingham's Public Works Natural Resources division, opened the meeting's substantive discussion by presenting proposed changes to the AIS inspection program—changes driven by what he characterized as "changing risk" from invasive species threats. The catalyst for these modifications was a 2023 detection of quagga mussels in Idaho's Mid Snake River, marking the first introduction of these invasive species to a water body connected to Washington State. "This represents kind of the first introduction of quagga mussels to a water body connected to Washington State," Schneider explained, noting that an infestation could cost Washington's water and power infrastructure $100 million annually. Despite Idaho's rapid response treatment with a copper-based chemical called Natrix, 2024 monitoring still detected mussel larvae, indicating the eradication effort had not been completely successful. The proposed fee restructure would fundamentally change how boat permits are priced, moving from a system based primarily on vessel size to one incorporating both complexity and origin risk. Currently, the program charges $10 for non-motorized permits, $30 for small vessels, and $60 for registered vessels—rates that haven't significantly changed since the program's 2014 inception. Under the new structure, fees would reflect three risk categories: Whatcom County boats (lowest risk), Washington State boats (moderate risk), and out-of-state boats (highest risk). The most expensive permit would cost $110 for an out-of-state registered vessel, while local non-motorized boats would increase only slightly to $15. "We're trying to do is increase the fees the most for the highest risk boats," Schneider said, projecting the changes would generate approximately $100,000 in additional annual revenue. The presentation revealed the program's impressive scope: in 2024 alone, staff inspected boats from across the continent, with the darkest shading on origin maps showing California, Oregon, and other western states as significant sources. Since data collection began around 2014, boats have arrived from virtually every U.S. state and Canadian province. Council Member Kaylee Galloway raised what would become a recurring theme about risk-based pricing serving broader policy goals. "I'm comfortable making it cost prohibitive for out-of-state boats to recreate in our watershed," she stated. "I think that feels better than banning boats on the water if we were to just talk about risk." She acknowledged the tourism implications of her stance, noting her dual role on the tourism board, but emphasized the priority of behavior change through economic incentives. The discussion touched on enforcement challenges, with questions about whether higher fees might drive boaters to avoid official inspection stations. Schneider acknowledged this "fair consideration" but emphasized the program's goal of making compliance as convenient as possible. The revenue would support installing automated gates at the Bloedel Donovan boat launch by the end of 2025, providing remote-operated access control when inspectors aren't present. Council Member Donovan raised concerns about finding the "sweet spot" between cost recovery and avoidance behavior. "Does it hit a tipping point where then there's the avoidance... they're going to intentionally avoid this program's inspection to find another access point to the lake?" The response highlighted ongoing coordination with the sheriff's office for enforcement and consideration of camera monitoring at unofficial launch sites. The program's complexity was illustrated through detailed vessel categories. Non-motorized craft like kayaks and canoes require relatively simple inspections, while registered vessels—particularly those from high-risk areas like Nevada, Texas, or Minnesota—can take well over 30 minutes to inspect due to multiple ballast systems, complex water body histories, and decontamination requirements. ## The 2025-2029 Watershed Work Plan Jason Porter, Storm and Surface Water Manager for the City of Bellingham, presented the culmination of nearly eight months of intensive work by the Inter-jurisdictional Coordinating Team (ICT)—comprised of 20 to 30 staff members from all three jurisdictions. The five-year work plan represented not just a planning document, but a roadmap for protecting the water supply serving over 100,000 people. "This five-year work plan really represents a coordinated effort between the three jurisdictions," Porter emphasized, noting that while it provides broad direction, it maintains crucial flexibility for adaptation to new information, policy changes, or regulatory requirements. The plan includes a new adaptive management section specifically addressing this need for flexibility—a direct response to public comments. The public engagement process had been extraordinary in scope and response. Porter detailed how the 307 comments from 37 individuals and six organizations required staff to spend over two months creating a comprehensive 75-page response matrix. "Having 37 editors on our document helps make it a better document," Porter noted, acknowledging the value of extensive community input. The public comment themes revealed both support and significant concerns. Multiple commenters requested specific phosphorus reduction estimates for each goal and objective—something Porter explained wasn't feasible at the planning stage. "It isn't easy to come up with phosphorus reduction efforts before you even started planning or implementing a project or process," he said. Instead, the work plan identifies activities that will generate those estimates through implementation and annual progress reporting. One of the most significant changes involved harmonizing goals, objectives, and metrics across all 12 program areas. "There were instances where these weren't working and harmonizing together," Porter admitted. "So now all three—the metrics support the goals and the objectives support the goals. So it's much more harmonized work plan." The plan incorporated SMART goal principles (Strategic, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) wherever possible, though Porter noted that some watershed management objectives don't translate directly to this framework. The document also added extensive hyperlinks to supporting studies, reports, and background information—addressing comments that the plan was "short on details." Several specific modifications demonstrated responsiveness to public input. Recreation goals were aligned with climate action objectives, ensuring that recreational access considers watershed health and land management. A boating objective was added to address multiple comments about boat impacts, with Porter explaining that current monitoring shows petrochemicals from boats remain below detection limits. The plan added reporting on sewer overflows in the Lake Whatcom watershed—a simple addition that provides transparency on infrastructure performance. Additional metrics were included for the land acquisition program, showing not just completed acquisitions but outreach efforts to potentially willing sellers. ## Public Comment and Policy Tensions The meeting's most contentious moments arose around unresolved policy questions and the role of advisory bodies in plan development. The City's Water Resources Advisory Board had voted 6-3 to support moving the plan forward, but the three dissenting members raised concerns that weren't incorporated into the final document. Council Member Galloway expressed frustration about the limits of policy group authority: "What just happened in this space was a disempowerment of legislative authority. And so I just want to say, if this body doesn't have any say on this or any direction we can give that's meaningful... what's the point?" Her comments reflected broader tension about when public input and policymaker guidance gets incorporated into planning documents versus being noted for future consideration. Staff emphasized they had listened to all feedback and would carry unaddressed comments forward into annual work planning and implementation decisions. Rick Eggert, speaking as an individual Water Resources Advisory Board member who had voted against the plan, outlined specific concerns including changing reporting metrics from numbers to percentages for better context, adding education about phosphorus-free fertilizer requirements, and maintaining annual rather than five-year intervals for the buildout report. The buildout report change particularly concerned Eggert and other commenters. This report tracks development pace in the watershed to inform policy decisions and has been produced annually for 15 years. Staff justified the change to five-year intervals citing the enormous workload and their assessment that the information doesn't change rapidly enough to warrant annual updates. "The buildout report is intended to keep track of how fast development is occurring in the watershed and help us inform goals, policies, and regulations," Eggert explained. "That really concerns me, and that's kind of... I don't know if that's a policy decision or staff." Michael Fier from the Markland Trees Project raised concerns about English ivy impacts being dismissed in the response matrix. While staff had noted that English ivy doesn't directly affect bacteria or phosphorus levels, Fier argued this missed important connections between invasive plants, tree canopy loss, and natural filtering capacity. "If over a thousand trees in the watershed including many trees on private properties right near the shore are being degraded and lost over time from English ivy... that reduces the filtering ability, the natural filtering ability that affects lake water," Fier explained, calling it "a missed opportunity to connect dots." ## Implementation and Next Steps The meeting concluded with discussion of adoption processes and future meeting schedules. Each jurisdiction will present the plan to their respective councils in January and February 2025, with potential final adoption at the March Joint Councils and Commissions meeting. Council Member Galloway advocated for bringing the plan to Whatcom County Council in late January for familiarization and feedback, then using a February policy group meeting for final coordination before joint adoption. "I think there would be a lot of power in having all of us in one room being able to unanimously approve this document," she said. The group agreed to schedule bi-monthly meetings for 2025, with flexibility to cancel sessions as needed. This represents an increase from the quarterly-plus-one schedule used in 2024, reflecting the substantial policy work ahead in implementing the five-year plan and addressing lingering questions raised during the comment period. Staff emphasized their view that the document represents a "final draft" that adequately addresses public input, even while acknowledging that not every comment received the response commenters might have preferred. The democratic process, as several speakers noted, cannot satisfy every viewpoint completely. ## Community Engagement and Communication Challenges A recurring theme throughout the meeting was the challenge of maintaining effective communication between the technical complexity of watershed management and public understanding. Multiple speakers noted that many residents remain unaware of ongoing monitoring and management activities. Regarding boating impacts, for example, several policy group members expressed surprise at learning that the city already monitors for petrochemicals and consistently finds levels below detection limits. "Everybody in the county should know that," said one council member, highlighting the gap between technical work and public awareness. The meeting revealed both the success and limitations of extensive public engagement. While 307 comments represented unprecedented community involvement, they came from a relatively small group of highly engaged individuals and organizations. This raised questions about how to reach less engaged community members while maintaining technical accuracy and policy flexibility. Staff committed to improving communication by posting the detailed comment response matrix online and creating more accessible summaries of technical decisions. The goal is closing what one speaker called "the communication leak" between complex watershed management work and public understanding of ongoing protection efforts. ## Forest Management and Sudden Valley An unexpected discussion emerged around forest management needs in Sudden Valley, the large residential development within the watershed. Lane, representing Sudden Valley, asked about potential collaboration on forest management planning for the community's common areas, noting aging trees and recent storm damage. "Financially it'd be impossible for Sudden Valley to do something like that without county or city help," Lane explained, describing extensive green spaces between homes and aging forest areas that might benefit from professional management planning. County staff indicated willingness to explore collaboration, though such work wouldn't fit within the current five-year plan's established framework. The discussion illustrated how watershed management increasingly involves coordination with private communities and homeowners associations, not just traditional government jurisdictions. ## Looking Forward As the meeting adjourned with wishes for good holidays, the Lake Whatcom Policy Group had navigated both routine program updates and complex policy discussions that will shape watershed management for the next five years. The AIS program changes reflect adaptive management in response to evolving threats, while the work plan represents an unprecedented level of public engagement in long-term watershed planning. The tensions around unresolved policy questions and advisory body input suggest ongoing challenges in balancing technical expertise, public engagement, and political oversight. However, the meeting also demonstrated the value of sustained inter-jurisdictional collaboration and the community's deep investment in protecting this critical water supply. With individual council presentations scheduled for early 2025 and joint adoption planned for March, the next several months will test whether the collaborative process can maintain momentum through final legislative approval and into implementation of what all participants acknowledged as an ambitious but necessary five-year agenda for watershed protection.